Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.

I'm not moralizing.. I really don't care what the "justification" or attitudes are.... just stating the law. LIFE ISN'T FAIR, We've all (well a fair number of us) had a few too many and had sex with someone for the first time... and I would think that at that point we legally could not have been giving informed consent. But.. it DOESN'T MATTER how we view it.. that's the damn law and if a person wants to protect themselves from prosecution they'd better damn well know the risks. It's like the fact that sex with another frequently results in children.... doesn't matter if it's fair or not.. that's the reality of it.. and the risk one takes when sharing genetic material. So if you don't want kids WRAP IT UP or get snipped.. if you don't want to take the risk of maybe being accused of rape.. then make sure your partner is reasonably sober (hard to tell sometimes, play on the safe side), has actually consented or get it in WRITING with a witness.

What many of you dont get is in the laws eyes it doesnt' matter if its rape or not. After the fact the woman can say it was rape and then you have a situation of your word against hers.

If she has charges pressed against you, you are arrested, booked, and then it goes on your record. You then spend thousands on lawyers fees and maybe jail time.

If you are a loser and you can only get sex by getting a girl so drunk she wont remember, then take the risk if you must. Real men dont take advantage of drunk women. I had this happen twice and both times I took the girl home.

Any loser that takes a girl that so messed up with alcohol to screw them is a scumbag. If they did it to my sister they wouldn't be walking long.

So as somebody said above ... take her home. Make sure she DOESN'T get raped and ask her out again sometime.

WHY would you take her home??? If I were a man I'd be afraid to even be seen with her according to what you said.

I've never been a fan of the "date rape" thing. I'm sure it happens a lot but it just is too easy for someone who feels heartbroken to get revenge. There really should be more proof of violence required before people can be charged with rape.

Again, what we need here is lawyer from America and from Canada. . .maybe other countries,too. There are a lot of people telling us what the law is and NONE of them are listed as convicts, law officers or attornies.

The Criminal Code of Canada definition of Assault: A person commits an assault when:

without the consent of another person, a person applies force intentionally to another person, directly or indirectly;

a person attempts or threatens, by act or gesture, to apply force to another person, if a person has present ability to effect their purpose; or causes that other person to believe, upon reasonable grounds, that they have present ability to effect their purpose;

while openly wearing or carrying a weapon or an imitation thereof, a person accosts or impedes another person or begs.

The definition of Assault is used to define Sexual Assault because they are exactly the same except for the sexual part.

Section 271 – Sexual Assault:Somebody touches you in a sexual way on purpose, directly or indirectly, without your consent.

Section 272 – Sexual Assault With A Weapon, Threats to a Third Party or Causing Bodily Harm:Somebody sexually assaults you and is armed with, or uses, a weapon, or, forces you to have sex by threatening to do injury to somebody else, (for example: they threaten to hurt your brother or sister if you don't do it), or, they injure you.

Back to: SECTIONS OF THE CRIMINAL CODE OTHER SEXUAL OFFENCES (Basic Summaries)

Section 151 – Sexual Interference: If you are under 16 years old, it is a criminal offence for someone to touch your body for a sexual purpose with a part of their body or any object, directly or indirectly.

Section 152 – Invitation to Sexual Touching: If you are under 16 years old, it is a criminal offence for someone to invite, counsel or incite you to touch, directly or indirectly, their body, the body of someone else or your own body, for a sexual purpose (with a part of your body or any object).

Section 153 – Sexual Exploitation: If you are 16 years old or older, but under 18, it is a criminal offence for someone in a position of trust or authority to have sexual contact with you even if you consent to it. For example, someone in a position of trust or authority such as a minister, coach, employer, teacher, etc.

Section 153.1 – Sexual Exploitation of Person With a Disability: If you are mentally or physically challenged (any age), it is a criminal offence if, without your consent, someone invites, counsels or incites you to touch, directly or indirectly, their body, the body of someone else or your own body, for a sexual purpose (with a part of your body or any object) if the offender is in a position of trust or authority towards you or if you are dependent on the offender.

Section 159 – Anal Intercourse: If you are under 18, and not married to each other, it is a criminal offence to have anal sex even if both persons consent. You must be over 18, or married and both consenting. It must be done in private and only by two people (if there are three people involved then the law says it's not in private).

Section 173.2 – Indecent Acts – Exposure of Genitals to Person Under16 Years of Age: If you are under 16 years old, it is a criminal offence for someone to expose his or her genital organs to you for a sexual purpose.

Back to: SECTIONS OF THE CRIMINAL CODE

CONSENT (Your Rights About Saying Yes or No)

The law about consent can be complicated. There are times when the offender sexually touches the victim without asking for permission. But, sometimes they do ask and the victim says "no" but the offender touches them anyway. If you say "no" then it means exactly that.

Your consent can't be forced. The courts can decide that consent was not given if the offender uses force, threats, fear of bodily harm, or by lying about what they wanted to do with you, or, if you are unable to give consent because you're mentally challenged.

Even if you do say yes, there are some cases when the other person can still get charged. Sometimes, you're not legally allowed to consent to have sex (Canadian Criminal Code 2000):

Basically, the legal age of consent is 16 years.

If you are under 14 years old, and you have sex with somebody more than two years older than you are, the other person can be charged with Sexual Assault. If you're 13 years old, you can consent to have sex with someone who' s 15 years old but you can't consent to have sex with a 16 year old person. The 16 year old person can be charged. If you're under 14 years old, you can't consent to have sex with anyone more than two years older than you are.

If you are under 18 years old, you can't legally consent to have sex with someone who is in a position of trust, power or authority over you. For example, a minister, coach, employer, teacher, police officer, etc. can be charged.

For more detailed information on the legal age of consent to sexual activity in Canada see the Parliamentary Research Branch at the Library of Parliament's website.

The Definition of Sexual Assault

The Canadian Criminal Code2 no longer contains separate offences of rape or indecent assault. In 1983, both of these offences were subsumed in the newly-created offence of “sexual assault.” The offence of assault is defined in s. 265 of the Code as an intentional touching without consent; ss. 271 through 273 create the offences of sexual assault, sexual assault causing bodily harm, and aggravated sexual assault. These offences are gender-neutral, in that either the complainant or the accused can be male or female.

The Code does not define the “sexual” element of a sexual assault. The Supreme Court of Canada has defined this element as follows:

‘Sexual assault is an assault ... which is committed in circumstances of a sexual nature, such that the sexual integrity of the victim is violated. The test to be applied in determining whether the impugned conduct has the requisite sexual nature is an objective one: “Viewed in the light of all the circumstances, is the sexual or carnal context of the assault visible to a reasonable observer?”’3 The actus reus of sexual assault therefore encompasses all forms of intentional, non-consensual touching that violates the complainant’s sexual integrity, whether or not the touching would have amounted to rape or indecent assault before 1983.

To prove a sexual assault, the Crown must also prove fault or mens rea, specifically that the accused knew, was wilfully blind to, or was reckless as to the victim’s lack of consent.4 To raise a reasonable doubt about the mens rea, the accused may not rely on his own self-induced intoxication or on his own failure to take reasonable steps to ascertain the complainant’s consent.5

For the actus reus of sexual assault, “consent” is purely subjective; that is, to prove that the complainant did not consent for the purpose of establishing the actus reus, the Crown needs to prove that the complainant, in her own mind, was unwilling for the sexual touching to occur.6 Consent is also limited by certain non-exhaustive provisions of the Code,7 including expressed lack of agreement by the complainant.8

For the mens rea of sexual assault, “consent” is objective. The accused’s claim that he honestly and mistakenly believed in the complainant’s consent must be a belief that the complainant had communicated her consent to him;9 it must not be tainted by any of the statutory factors vitiating consent;10 and it cannot be raised unless the accused took “reasonable steps, in the circumstances known to the accused at the time” to ascertain consent.11

Subject to certain exceptions, the age of consent to sexual activity in Canadian criminal law is 14.12

Proof of Sexual Assault

In order to establish that a sexual assault occurred, the Crown must prove each of the elements listed above beyond a reasonable doubt: that there was an intentional touching, that the complainant did not subjectively consent to the touch, that the touch was of a sexual nature, and that the accused knew or was wilfully blind to or was reckless as to the complainant’s lack of communicated consent, and did not have a mistaken belief in consent.

To prove non-consent, it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove that the complainant physically resisted the attack or that the accused used physical force. It would be a serious error of law for a trial judge to instruct a jury that proof of non-consent depended on resistance by the complainant or use of force by the accused. While the Crown may introduce evidence of injury to the complainant as evidence of non-consent, such evidence is not required to prove non-consent.

There is no concept of “implied consent” in the Canadian law of sexual assault. Neither the accused at the time of the offence nor the court at the time of trial can infer consent from lack of resistance. The Supreme Court specifically rejected the concept of “implied consent” in Ewanchuck13 and, in R. v. M.(M.L.),14 held that lack of resistance is not to be equated with consent.

It is, therefore, important to note that the absence of evidence of resistance by a complainant would not be relevant to the assessment of credibility of the complainant, and it would not be necessary for the Crown to establish that an accused used force or threats.

As stated in paragraph 1.6 above, under Canadian law, it is legally possible for a person of 14 years of age to give consent to conduct of a sexual nature. Furthermore, the age of the victim would have no formal impact on the burden of proof or on the facts that the Crown would have to prove. However, depending upon the specific facts of a given case, age and sexual inexperience of a victim could be used by the Crown in establishing the elements necessary to prove sexual assault, i.e. whether or not the victim consented.

Investigation and Prosecution of Sexual Offences

The decision to lay a charge under the Criminal Code normally rests with the police. It is open to the police to choose not to lay a charge if they find that an allegation is “unfounded.” There is little recourse for the complainant in this situation.

The Canadian code does not explicitly define sexual assault in terms of the types of sexual activity prohibited. However, for the purpose of determining whether a sexual assault has occurred, the statute defines consent as the “voluntary agreement of the complainant to engage in the sexual activity in question.” If the complainant is incapable of consenting to the activity or if the complainant expresses, by words or conduct, a lack of agreement to engage in the activity, a defendant may not successfully defend against charges of sexual assault on the grounds that the complainant consented.

The law is available for those who wish to look it up...even better now with the internet.

Postscript.. Canada just recently changed the age of consent from 14 to 16 years of age.. I'm not entirely sure if the above info accurately represents the changes exactly.

Should they fight back and have to show 'defense' wounds? It's hard enough for a rape victim to get a conviction, this would set them back a century.

Convictions are hard to get? You have to be kidding, this is one of the few areas where the onus is on the accused to prove innocence rather than guilt.

To prove a sexual assault, the Crown must also prove fault or mens rea, specifically that the accused knew, was wilfully blind to, or was reckless as to the victim’s lack of consent.4 To raise a reasonable doubt about the mens rea, the accused may not rely on his own self-induced intoxication or on his own failure to take reasonable steps to ascertain the complainant’s consent.5

Okay so you can't say you were too drunk to drive a car as an excuse, and you can't say you were too drunk to realise someone didn't consent to something even if they never so much as said "no", but you CAN say "I was so drunk I slept with someone I later regretted and now it is rape"?Excuse me if I suggest that as an adult of legal age one should know their limits and be responsible for ALL of their behaviour intoxicated or not. Including screwing around on a husband/wife, gf/bf or just going to bed with a "10" and waking up next to a "2".

This doesn't come close to the predatory cretin looking to "get chicks trashed so he can get some" that I am sure the law MEANT to punish. It is a bit creepy when by gender you have one set of rule different from the other. And face it, it will be a cold day in hell before you see a guy in court calling such an example of poor judgement rape, just because his girlfriend found out or the woman was particularly homely and his friends found out.

There is a saying one should remember: You may beat the rap, but you won't beat the ride. Being right is not much consolation when you have to pay to bail yourself out of jail, pay an attorney to defend you and sit waiting for the jury to return a verdict. Finally, most people will assume you were guilty and ``your attorney got you off,'' (no matter how much of a misconception that is), so a not guilty verdict for being not guilty, mainly means not going to jail, but having your life ****ed up. Why have sex with someone who is too wasted to be good at it?

Ok.NOW we know the laws in CANADA.We also now have people continuing to post basing at least part of their posts on CANADIAN law.Perhaps we need someone to research AMERICAN laws now.(This has gone on for so so long now I am not even sure WHERE the OP lives-lol! Maybe we need to stick to the laws where the OP lives/where the incident took place.)ANYTHING ELSE, is just OPINION.I would be curious as to how this would be handled in a court of law where the OP resides. THAT would be proper closure for this thread.(By the way, to a certain Canadian artistic poster here: pretty women who read books--even via the internet--are a big turn-on! SOrry. Back to our regularly scheduled topic.)

It should be noted that a lot of women and men go home and have drunken sex with people they just met and they don't regret it. A lot of relationships have started that way, a lot of babies too (I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be here today if it wasn't for the beers my parents downed one summer night).

I have not had a drink in some time. When i was younger, it was a different story. However i have never been so drunk that i didnt know what i was doing. I think the i was drunk excuse is a cop out. and that is in all directions. If you make the choice to get drunk you are making the choice to take the consiquences.

he was introduced by his friends to a new girl. they were drunk when they had sex (the same night they met). whether she was raped or "changed her mind" wasn't relevant, apparently, as he did three years on a criminal sex charge. and now he's on the sex offender registry here in Michigan. sort of complicates your life, does it not? everyone treats you like some kind of freak, assumes the worst, etc.

so, law, schmaw. I read the court transcript and it sounded like the argument could have gone either way (consensual/non-consensual) but for whatever reason, he got convicted. the take-away, seems to me, is you don't want to put yourself in that position, and i'm talking from the male perspective. i would expect there is a bias in the legal system against males, and it's there for a reason, that we've come by our "bad rap" honestly, if you will.

Morally, the quote by kittenshere41, "when people are drinking they still know what they are doing. she is just as responsible as he is. drinking is no excuse. no need to sex somene and cry later" is accurate but in reality, drunk or not, you had better have a lot of background on any woman you have sex with.

Men are now being convicted when the full act was consensual and the woman had remorse or a guilt attack the next day. A man legally at risk for any sexual act or overture, no matter how mutal, if at any time the woman decides to take offense. Most women are sane enough to not be a risk. Spending a little time and using a little wisdom can tell you which woman you are safe with to not make false allegations.

Our Crime Victims Assistance Programs give tens of thousands of dollars to women just for making an allegation. Kobe Bryant's accuser received $25K within days of making the allegation she later recanted. She did not even have to wait for a conviction. Ask your local CVA Program director about these awards for alleged rape or sexual assault. It pays big money.

But a drunken woman you meet in a bar is not the most stable and you are being exceptionally stupid for even thinking of taking her home for sex, much less being alone with her with no one to witness you did not assault or rape her. Today it is suicidal for a man to be alone with a strange drunken woman. She can even murder you and claim assault and still get her blood money from the CVA.

If this post sounds implausible, just watch your local newspaper for details over the next month. You will probably see verification within days if you are in a larger city.

I was curious about what I'd see in this discussion. SoTex is right on target. It can be scary to be a single male. (Personally I don't cruise the bars or do one nighters at all. I'd rather have alot of sex with the same woman, than alot of sex with many different women.) I know a woman who has not once, but THREE times cried rape after the fact. On three separate occassions, she was caught cheating on her boyfriend, a different guy each time. She does not drink or use any intoxicating substances. Not at all. AFTER she was caught, she began to cry and feel remorse which soon changed to " I never wanted it". All three times she cried rape, when she really felt guilt. Then all three times she recanted her story before criminal charges were processed. The victims here are her poor boyfriend (who blindly believed her each time) and those 3 guys who were publicly accused. One of them was assaulted in "revenge". For whatever reason, this girl decided to confide in me with the details. My conclusion is that she is such an emotional mess that it's scary. After rewriting history so many times, she doesn't even know what happened. She is frightening, dangerous. I'm so glad I don't mess around with girls like that!

well this is an interesting question, and to each their own as i know nothing of the legal aspects of this topic. However there are a couple things that make it so i would never take a drunk girl home for that sort of activity. when i was in highschool there were a few times i would drink to the point of passing out, where i didn't know what was going on, but i was still active and doing stuff...i just was unaware of what i was doing and would come in and out of conciousness as i did it.

To me knowing that's a possibility i wouldn't take the risk of that happening to someone because "she doesn't seem that drunk". If she is under the influence i don't think that she's able to make an informed decision, and besides...if I"M going to be with someone, i would hope that the first time was something special to us both. hope i don't sound like a just wanted a reason to use the emoticon :)

I won't do it. I have turned down "sure things" because I just won't do it. It's not worth it to me. Besides the fact that drunk sex SUCKS in my view... (Unless it's Jagermeister!)

But yeah I won't do it because A: I want the girl to participate and do things to me to turn me on, not just lie there. B: I don't want to do all the work. C: A girl stopping in the middle to pee, kinda takes the romance out of it. And D: If you have ever had a drunk chick BARF on your****while she's blowing you, I will pay you a million dollars if you can still get it up after THAT!

No way, no thanks if she is DRUNK! I'm taking her home and she can leave her head spinning on the bed ALONE!

Now stoned or buzzed is a different matter entirely. But fall down DRUNK!!! HELL NO! I'm not that desperate, and not that pathetic to use somebdy in that awful condition as a personal masturbatory aid/prop of just my personal gratification. (And I use that term loosely!)

Personally for me I do consider it rape. When women I knew in college would brag about fvcking some guy (or guys) and they couldn't remember where, who, or if they even bothered to use a condom (most did NOT if you can believe it!) I just wanted to throw UP!

And naturally they called me "gay" or "a p*ssy" because I ultimately objected to their "lifestyle" or their offers to "straighten me out."

Well I'm still clean and I can sleep at night, so in retrospect I don't think I missed out on much!

At the bar, there was no question that she wanted me to take her home. We only spoke for about five minutes and she said, "Take me home and f*** me."

For you to pick up a girl in 5 minutes, drunk or not, you have real skill. I wish I knew what the secret was... I'd give anything to know exactly what you said/did that got her to excited, although it may have been your looks alone.

1. If you're all up on a virtually passed out woman, that's kinda pathetic. If she's just visibly buzzed, then I don't see how (since 9/10 the man is in a similar state) how that's even remotely close to rape.

2. With the exception of foreign chemicals being added to liquor or forced consumption, we're talking gun to the head or restraining here, only 1 person made the decision to drink until drunk and that's you. The fact is, men get too drunk and they might wake up to a fat chick, they mark it as a personal loss and know they probably couldnt' get it up anyway. Women wake up to some unnattractive****and suddenly he's a rapist. It's social, plus the accusation is death to a man's social standing btw, so be careful where you throw it.

3. While I can see how it would be considered rape to force yourself on a woman passed out on the floor of a bar and not likely to wake up for a few hours. I have aboslutely 0 sympathy for that person. Infact less than 0. F*ck this society and it's god damn importance on "letting loose and getting intoxicated beyond reason." If you stop being able to make decisions, it shouldn't mean you're no longer accountable for them. You were sober, you knew the risks.

So in short, either outlaw alcohol, or more preferably, force people who are drinking to sign a waiver. They're respsonible for what happens. You wanna play russian roullete with your sh*t, who cares.

I don't see why people are making it the responsibility of *everyone but themselves* when they decide to intoxicate themselves to the excess.

Before anyone says I'm cold hearted, or don't know how to have fun, or starts thinkin I'm too serious. Just ask yourself, what the hell is the point of "having so much fun you can't remember exactly what you did, if anything at all from the time in question." ?

Just an fyi... anytime a person has sex with someone who is under the influence of ANYTHING does not constitute as consenting. Therefore, even if a hypothetical woman were to cry foul due to the inability to control the amount of liquor she was drinking, she could still file a rape charge against the man.

Ciao-

lol, I hope 1 day you see how ridiculous this comment is. I sort of hope we get to the stage in society where drivers are too drunk to make any decisions and there-fore can't be held responsible for drunk driving, nor any accidents cause while under the influence and behind the wheel. I want crippled people to have the judge look them in the eye and say "Sorry, I know the guy plowed into you but he'd had a 26 of jack and 10 beers! It's not his fault he spilt his mixer and mounted the curb you were standing on."

I would be a lil worried, you think your the first guy taking this girl home from the bar when she's drunk?? Touching this girls hands could spread herpes,lol. I would leave that alone and let some other fool deal with that DRAMA...

i have a policy as a black man that i dont go near women especially white girls when they are drinking and i dont even ride a elevator with white girls i dont trust them in those 2 enviiorments i not going to be turned into a kobe bryant. lol

that drunk policy i have is held to all women but there have been more than enough cases of black men being falsely accused of raping white females in that type of situtation. Fellas the next time some woman decides to give u a piece of ass get it on tape or have here put it on paper lol

If you have a few drinks, then get into your car and have an accident, it's your fault. If a woman has a few drinks and drops her panties, it's the guy's fault... Even if he's been drinking, too. Alcohol lowers your inhibitions. If you're a slut drunk, then you're a slut sober. Your just better at hiding it. If you don't like what comes out when you drink, don't drink. Of course, many women like being able to say "It was the alcohol." when they give in to their desires. A lot of you aren't nearly as drunk as you put on either. It's an excuse to be irresponsible.

None of this matter's though, because as Dave said... There is no justice when a man is accused of rape for having consensual sex with a woman who changes her mind... even if it's after the fact. I don't pick-up drunk chicks, and If I think alcohol is influencing a date to give it up, I pass on that, too. You can't trust women these days. You never know which one is going to trash your life because she embarrassed herself.